Members Of Disadvantaged Groups Research Articles

The politics of allyship: Multiethnic coalitions and mass attitudes toward protest

Recent work finds that nonviolent resistance by ethnic minorities is perceived as more violent and requiring more policing than identical resistance by ethnic majorities, reducing its impact and effectiveness. We ask whether allies-advantaged group participants in disadvantaged group movements-can mitigate these barriers. On the one hand, allies can counter negative stereotypes and defuse threat perceptions among advantaged group members, while raising expectations of success and lowering expected risks among disadvantaged group members. On the other hand, allies can entail significant costs, carrying risks of cooptation, replication of power hierarchies, and marginalization of core constituencies. To shed light on this question we draw on the case of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, which, in 2020, attracted unprecedented White participation. Employing a national survey experiment, we find that sizeable White presence at racial justice protests increases protest approval, reduces perceptions of violence, and raises the likelihood of participation among White audiences, while not causing significant backlash among Black audiences. Black respondents mostly see White presence as useful for advancing the movement's goals, and predominant White presence reduces expectations that protests will be forcefully repressed. We complement these results with analysis of tens of thousands of images shared on social media during the 2020 BLM protests, finding a significant association between the presence of Whites in the images and user engagement and amplification. The findings suggest that allyship can be a powerful tool for promoting sociopolitical change amid deep structural inequality.

Authoritarians and “revolutionaries in reverse”: Why collective narcissism threatens democracy

Collective narcissism is a belief that the ingroup deserves but is denied special treatment and recognition. It is a projection of the narcissistic need to be recognized as better than others on the social level of the self. It is an aspect of ingroup identification, one of the ways group members favour their ingroup. National narcissism is associated with collective narcissism of advantaged national subgroups (e.g., Whites, men). National collective narcissism and collective narcissism of advantaged groups similarly predict discrimination of disadvantaged national subgroups (e.g., racial minorities, women) and legitimization of group-based inequality. Members of disadvantaged groups who endorse national narcissism internalize beliefs legitimizing inequality. Ultraconservative populists propagate national narcissism to undermine the political system that does not sufficiently serve the interests of advantaged groups. National narcissism predicts patriotism and nationalism. Once the three forms of national favouritism are differentiated, it becomes clear that patriotism does not come at the expense of nationalism, discrimination, societal polarization, or erosion of democracy. Instead, it may be a remedy against them.

How do disadvantaged groups perceive allies? Women's perceptions of men who confront sexism in an egalitarian or paternalistic way

AbstractIn this research, we focused on women's perception of men as allies depending on the type of confrontation. We conducted four experimental scenario studies (Study 1 and 2 in a bar setting; Study 3 and 4 in a workplace setting) where a man confronted a sexist comment using either an egalitarian or paternalistic argument. Results showed that women are more likely to perceive egalitarian (vs. paternalistic) confronters as allies (Studies 1–4). This is explained by the fact that they contribute to reducing power asymmetries (decreasing perceived interpersonal power differences: Studies 2 and 4; or increasing women's empowerment: Studies 3 and 4). Furthermore, the egalitarian (vs. paternalistic) confrontation positively impacts interpersonal and intergroup relations, and this is explained by the perception of the confronter as an ally (Studies 1, 2 and 4). We discuss the role of disadvantaged group members’ perception of advantaged group members to disentangle the complexity of alliances.

Disadvantaged group members are prouder of their group when using the language of the dominant group compared to their native language.

In ethnically and linguistically diverse societies, disadvantaged groups often face pressures to acquire and speak the advantaged group's language to achieve social inclusion and economic mobility. This work investigates how using the advantaged group's language affects disadvantaged group members' in-group pride and collective self-esteem, relative to using their native language. Across six experimental studies involving Palestinian citizens of Israel (total N = 1,348), we test two competing hypotheses: Disadvantaged group members may experience greater in-group pride when using a) their native language, due to its emotional significance (the nativity hypothesis), or b) the language of the advantaged group, due to activation of habituated compensatory responses to dominance relations (the identity enhancement hypothesis). We found that respondents reported significantly higher in-group pride when responding to a Hebrew survey when compared to performing the same activity in Arabic (Studies 1a and 1b), regardless of whether the researchers administering the survey were identified as Jewish or Arab (Studies 2a and 2b). Study 3 replicated this effect while employing the "bogus pipeline" technique, suggesting the pride expression was authentic, not merely driven by social desirability. Finally, Study 4 (pre-registered) examined additional measures of positive regard for the in-group, finding that participants described their group more positively in an attribute selection task, and reported greater collective self-esteem, when surveyed in Hebrew, rather than in Arabic. Taken together, these findings suggest that language use influences disadvantaged group members' perceptions and feelings concerning their group when those languages are associated with relative position in an intergroup hierarchy.

Procedural fairness in ethnic-cultural decision-making: Benefits, processes and minority and majority group perspectives

ABSTRACT As nations worldwide diversify, societal institutions are increasingly faced with the challenging task to resolve issues regarding ethnic, cultural, and linguistic matters. In the present contribution, we review evidence for a theoretical model that highlights the relevance of procedural fairness for dealing with such ethnic-cultural issues. Our collective model of procedural fairness (CPF) explains the reactions to fairness enactment of different stakeholders: Minority groups that receive fair treatment, third-party minority groups, and the majority. For minority groups, ethnic-cultural procedural fairness effects emerge through self-categorisation processes, leading to positive leader evaluations and decision acceptance, as well as increased feelings of societal inclusion, well-being, and social trust. For the majority group, CPF holds that responses to ethnic-cultural procedural fairness are driven by higher-order moral standards of rightful conduct towards disadvantaged group members. Taken together, the present contribution accentuates the usefulness of ethnic-cultural procedural fairness as a social engineering tool in diverse societies.

Margaret Archer (1943-2023) on Critical Realism and Morphogenesis: Linking Critical Realist Research Models from East and West

Critical Realism (CR) is a philosophical approach to social science research, social action, and social change activism. It provides a framework for social scientists whose value commitments leads them to view the construction of social phenomenon in critical ways, which identify the often hidden oppressive elements in social structures. This understanding of a ‘new’ reality underlies the advocacy of change strategies, and the initiation of dialogue between members of disadvantaged and oppressed groups through the process of ‘morphogenesis’ This model of dialogues enabling change and the ‘unmasking of alienation’ stem from the work of Roy Bhaskar, and has been developed by Margaret Archer and other European scholars. An important feature of CR has been the application by the emergence of shared understanding, by social scientists from different value traditions (e.g. Christianity, Secular Humanism, and Islam). The JOCRISE in taking CR understandings of oppressive social forces into new fields, and with fresh CR models, is welcomed. In appraising the new model from JOCRISE, we offer both Cartesian dualism, and Popper’s World 3 model as elements of a new, dynamic focus on social change advocacy.

Mobilizing or Sedative Effects? A Narrative Review of the Association Between Intergroup Contact and Collective Action Among Advantaged and Disadvantaged Groups

Academic In this narrative review, we examined 134 studies of the relationship between intergroup contact and collective action benefiting disadvantaged groups. We aimed to identify whether, when, and why contact has mobilizing effects (promoting collective action) or sedative effects (inhibiting collective action). For both moderators and mediators, factors associated with the intergroup situation (compared with those associated with the out-group or the in-group) emerged as the most important. Group status had important effects. For members of socially advantaged groups (examined in 98 studies, 100 samples), contact had a general mobilizing effect, which was stronger when contact increased awareness of experiences of injustice among members of disadvantaged groups. For members of disadvantaged groups (examined in 49 studies, 58 samples), contact had mixed effects. Contact that increased awareness of injustice mobilized collection action; contact that made the legitimacy of group hierarchy or threat of retaliation more salient produced sedative effects. Public We present a review of existing studies that have investigated the relationship between intergroup contact and collective action aimed at promoting equity for disadvantaged groups. We further consider the influence of contact that is positive or negative and face-to-face or indirect (e.g., through mass or social media), and we distinguish between collective action that involves socially acceptable behaviors or is destructive and violent. We identified 134 studies, considering both advantaged (100 samples) and disadvantaged groups (58 samples). We found that intergroup contact impacts collective action differently depending on group status. Contact generally leads advantaged groups to mobilize in favor of disadvantaged groups. However, contact has variable effects on members of disadvantaged groups: It sometimes promotes their collective action in support of their own group; in other cases, it leads them to be less likely to engage in such action. We examine when and why contact can have these different effects.

(Not so) powerful allies? Decision makers’ reactions to advantaged group allies in collective action

AbstractDo allies in collective action have a positive impact on political efficacy? Theoretical considerations and common sense might lead us to expect that advantaged group allies will be beneficial to the success of social movements. However, across five experimental studies, with samples from the United States and Germany (three pre‐registered, total N = 696, 48% women, Mage = 38), we find that such involvement does not significantly affect authorities’ reactions to the demands of disadvantaged groups. Decision makers were given information about proposals supported either by only disadvantaged group members or by disadvantaged group members and advantaged group allies. Their support, budget allocations, voting intentions and perceptions of movements and proposals did not differ as a function of this information. However, collective actions including allies did reduce perceptions of intergroup conflict. These results were replicated across different contexts with student and local politicians and with participants acting as parliamentarians in fictional scenarios.

The socialization of perceived discrimination in ethnic minority groups.

Contact with members of one's own group (ingroup) and other groups (outgroups) shapes individuals' beliefs about the world, including perceptions of discrimination against one's ingroup. Research to date indicates that, among members of disadvantaged groups, contact with an advantaged outgroup is associated with less perceived discrimination, while contact with the disadvantaged ingroup is associated with more perceived discrimination. Past studies, however, considered ingroup and outgroup contact in isolation and overlooked the various processes that could explain these associations. We addressed these issues by examining whether disadvantaged-group members' perceptions of discrimination are shaped by how much contact they have with ingroup and outgroup members (contact effects) or by those ingroup and outgroup members' perceptions of discrimination (socialization effects) while controlling for their tendency to affiliate with similar others (selection effects). Three studies (total N = 5,866 ethnic minority group members) assessed participants' positive contact, friendships, and perceived discrimination and applied longitudinal and social network analyses to separate and simultaneously test contact, socialization, and selection processes. In contrast to previous studies, we found no evidence that contact with members of the advantaged outgroup precedes perceived discrimination. Instead, we found that friendships with members of the disadvantaged ingroup longitudinally predict perceived discrimination through the process of socialization-disadvantaged-group members' perceptions of discrimination became more similar to their ingroup friends' perceptions of discrimination over time. We conclude that perceptions of discrimination should be partly understood as a socialized belief about a shared reality. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Intergroup contact is reliably associated with reduced prejudice, even in the face of group threat and discrimination.

Intergroup contact provides a reliable means of reducing prejudice. Yet, critics suggested that its efficacy is undermined, even eliminated, under certain conditions. Specifically, contact may be ineffective in the face of threat, especially to (historically) advantaged groups, and discrimination, experienced especially by (historically) disadvantaged groups. We considered perceived intergroup threat and perceived discrimination as potential moderators of the effect of contact on prejudice. Two meta-analyses of correlational data from 34 studies (totaling 63,945 respondents-drawn from 67 subsamples across 19 countries) showed that contact was associated with decreased prejudice and increased out-group positivity, in cross-sectional and longitudinal designs, among advantaged and disadvantaged group members, and in both Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) and non-WEIRD contexts. Both perceived threat and perceived discrimination moderated the contact-attitude association, but in an unanticipated direction. Indeed, contact's beneficial effects were at least as strong among individuals high (r = .19) as among individuals low (r = .18) in perceived threat. Similarly, the effects of contact were at least as strong among those high (r = .23) as among those low (r = .20) in perceived discrimination. We conclude that contact is effective for promoting tolerant societies because it is effective even among subpopulations where achieving that goal might be most challenging. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Equity Gaps in Literacy among Elementary School Students from Two Countries: The Negative Social Resonance Effect of Intersectional Disadvantage and the Dampening Effect of Learning Capital

Students may be members of multiple disadvantaged groups whose negative effects may reinforce each other (intersectionality). In two studies dealing with elementary students’ literacy skills, we examine one negative reinforcing effect and one dampening effect of intersectionality. In Study 1, we tested the negative social resonance effect of intersectional disadvantage, which means that disadvantages in achievement of intersecting disadvantaged groups would be stronger in social judgments of achievement than in objective measurement. This assumption was confirmed with a sample of 1926 German fourth-grade students. A MANOVA showed that the disadvantages in SES, migration background, and gender were cumulative. A path analysis revealed that the negative effects were larger in teachers’ performance assessments than in objective test performance in literacy. In Study 2, the negative social resonance effect of intersectional disadvantage was replicated with a sample of 777 students from Grades 4 and 5 in the United Arab Emirates. In addition, a dampening effect of learning capital was found. This effect was comparatively larger than the negative social resonance effect of intersectional disadvantage.

Corrigendum to “The irony of fairness: How procedural fairness climate perceptions can hinder disadvantaged group members’ support for social change”

Corrigendum to “The irony of fairness: How procedural fairness climate perceptions can hinder disadvantaged group members’ support for social change”

Procedural fairness in ethnic-cultural decision-making: fostering social cohesion by incorporating minority and majority perspectives.

Recent research describes how procedural fairness can be used to resolve issues related to ethnic-cultural matters. The central finding in this strand of literature is that when minority members experience procedurally fair treatment by societal actors regarding ethnic-cultural issues, this will lead to a range of outcomes that are beneficial for social cohesion. Although these results are promising, it remains yet to be shown that such group-specific treatment fairness does not hamper social cohesion by inciting misapprehension among members of non-recipient groups. Therefore, the present study set out to examine two central questions. First, how would minority group members respond to treatment fairness of citizens belonging to another minority group? Second, how would majority group members respond to treatment fairness of citizens belonging to minority groups? Two experimental studies (total N = 908) examined these questions. In Study 1, we compared ethnic-cultural minorities' reactions to procedurally (un)fair treatment of their own versus a different minority group. In Study 2, we compared minority and majority group members' responses to procedurally (un)fair treatment of minority group members. Results show that minority group member reactions to ethnic-cultural procedural fairness emanate from a shared bond with the fairness recipient(s) of the other minority group. Conversely, majority group members' reactions are driven primarily by a perceived moral obligation to act rightfully toward members of disadvantaged groups. Taken together, our results suggest that ethnic-cultural procedural fairness enactment fosters societal unity among different groups, possibly strengthening social cohesion for well-being and prosperity among members of these groups.

Women evaluate ally men less positively and are less willing to work with them for gender equality when men deny their male privilege

Members of advantaged groups can play a role in addressing discrimination and inequality. Sometimes, members of advantaged groups are motivated to deny their group-based privilege, however. In two studies ( Ns = 196, 600), we examined how privilege denial affects disadvantaged group members’ (i.e., women’s) evaluations of advantaged group members (i.e., men) who engage in collective action to support equality. We sampled women attending colleges or universities in the United States and randomly assigned them to read about a man who attended a rally to support gender equality and either denied his male privilege, acknowledged it, or said nothing about his privilege at all. We found that women evaluated a man who attended a rally to support gender equality less positively and were less willing to work with him for gender equality if he denied his male privilege. This pattern was either fully (Study 1) or partly (Study 2) statistically mediated by women rating a man who denied his male privilege as less moral, an effect that was stronger among women who identified more highly as feminists. Our findings indicate that advantaged group allies who deny their group-based privilege diminish their potential contributions to movements for equality.

The effect of group status on children's hierarchy-reinforcing beliefs.

Members of advantaged groups are more likely than members of disadvantaged groups to think, feel, and behave in ways that reinforce their group's position within the hierarchy. This study examined how children's status within a group-based hierarchy shapes their beliefs about the hierarchy and the groups that comprise it in ways that reinforce the hierarchy. To do this, we randomly assigned children (4-8 years; N=123; 75 female, 48 male; 21 Asian, 9 Black, 21 Latino/a, 1 Middle-Eastern/North-African, 14 multiracial, 41 White, 16 not-specified) to novel groups that differed in social status (advantaged, disadvantaged, neutral third-party) and assessed their beliefs about the hierarchy. Across five separate assessments, advantaged-group children were more likely to judge the hierarchy to be fair, generalizable, and wrong to challenge and were more likely to hold biased intergroup attitudes and exclude disadvantaged group members. In addition, with age, children in both the advantaged- and disadvantaged-groups became more likely to see membership in their own group as inherited, while at the same time expecting group-relevant behaviors to be determined more by the environment. With age, children also judged the hierarchy to be more unfair and expected the hierarchy to generalize across contexts. These findings provide novel insights into how children's position within hierarchies can contribute to the formation of hierarchy-reinforcing beliefs. RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS: A total of 123 4-8-year-olds were assigned to advantaged, disadvantaged, and third-party groups within a hierarchy and were assessed on seven hierarchy-reinforcing beliefs about the hierarchy. Advantaged children were more likely to say the hierarchy was fair, generalizable, and wrong to challenge and to hold intergroup biases favoring advantaged group members. With age, advantaged- and disadvantaged-group children held more essentialist beliefs about membership in their own group, but not the behaviors associated with their group. Results suggest that advantaged group status can shape how children perceive and respond to the hierarchies they are embedded within.

Disadvantaged-Group Members’ Experiences of Life Transitions: The Positive Impact of Social Connectedness and Group Memberships

Whether life transitions are anticipated or unforeseen, they can be challenging to navigate because the change process involves a period of uncertainty and adjustment. Specifically, transitions often require social identity change, whereby individuals leave one or more social groups behind and join one or more groups in the new environment. Such changes can be especially hard when individuals belong to a disadvantaged group (e.g., a low-income or racial- or ethnic-minority group) because they also have to contend with the additional hurdle of systemic inequality. Yet members of disadvantaged groups also have resources to navigate social identity change during life transitions—resources that facilitate and support successful social identity change. We review our research with immigrants and university students to show how individuals’ social connectedness with groups can facilitate positive outcomes during life transitions, including social integration, psychological well-being, positive beliefs about the self, and successful academic performance. In particular, we consider individuals’ group memberships prior to the transition and the new identities they adopt in the new context as key determinants of successful identity change. We conclude with implications for policy and practice.

The irony of fairness: How procedural fairness climate perceptions can hinder disadvantaged group members’ support for social change

The current research investigated an “ironic” consequence of a perceived procedural fairness climate vis-à-vis disadvantaged groups. Specifically, we examined whether the perception that societal institutions treat one’s underprivileged group in a procedurally fair way negatively impacts upon minority group members’ support for social change. Six studies (total N = 1,076) supported our claims. In survey Study 1 (Belgian ethnic minorities), procedural fairness climate perceptions were negatively related to support for social change. Cross-sectional Studies 2 (colored South Africans) and 3 (Hispanic Americans) further showed that this relationship is mediated by beliefs in minority mobility. Finally, Studies 4–6 (Asian and African Americans) provided experimental evidence corroborating our causal mediation model. Our findings align with literature demonstrating similar “ironic” effects of procedural fairness among advantaged group members, as they illustrate that the perception of a procedural fairness climate can analogously prevent disadvantaged group members from advocating changes that could alleviate their state of deprivation.

Meta-analysis of the "ironic" effects of intergroup contact.

Growing evidence suggests that intergroup contact, psychology's most-researched paradigm for reducing prejudice, has the "ironic" effect of reducing support for social change in disadvantaged groups. We conducted a preregistered meta-analytic test of this effect across 98 studies with 140 samples of 213,085 disadvantaged-group members. As predicted, intergroup contact was, on average, associated with less perceived injustice (r = -.07), collective action (r = -.06), and support for reparative policies (r = -.07). However, these associations were small, variable, and consistent with alternative explanations. Across outcomes, 25%-36% of studies found positive associations with intergroup contact. Moderator analyses explained about a third of the between-sample variance, showing that, at least for perceived injustice, associations with intergroup contact were most consistently negative in studies that measured direct, qualitatively positive contact among adults. We also found evidence for an alternative explanation for the apparent "ironic" effects of intergroup contact as, after controlling for the positive association of negative contact with support for social change, positive contact was no longer associated with any of the outcomes. We close by discussing the strengths and limitations of the available evidence and by highlighting open questions about the relationship between intergroup contact and support for social change in disadvantaged groups. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Creating inclusivity through boundary work? Zooming in on low-wage service sector work

Workers in the low-wage service sector represent a sociodemographically heterogeneous and particularly vulnerable group in terms of job security, job quality and health implications. However, organizational inclusion research has largely neglected this group. In contrast, this article builds on a qualitative study of a Dutch aircraft cleaning company in order to assess the ‘inclusivity of inclusion approaches’ for less privileged groups of employees. By reconstructing how managers and cleaners draw/rework boundaries, we identify certain configurations of inclusion and exclusion that can unfold more or less ‘inclusive’ consequences for historically disadvantaged group members, and more or less exclusionary repercussions for particularly privileged and/or majority group members. We stress the need to say goodbye to a linear narrative of organizations becoming ‘inclusive as such’. Furthermore, we argue that the presence of decent working and employment conditions and the absence of steep differences in those conditions between groups represent the ‘silent foundation’ of creating inclusivity. Consequently, we ask: does inclusion research reach its ‘natural limits’ by tiptoeing around the topic of equality?

Further evidence that system justification amongst the disadvantaged is positively related to superordinate group identification

Members of disadvantaged groups sometimes support societal systems that enable the very inequalities that disadvantaged them. Is it possible to explain this puzzling system-justifying orientation in terms of rational group-interested motives, without recourse to a separate system motive? The social identity model of system attitudes (SIMSA) claims that it is. SIMSA proposes that the system justification shown by a disadvantaged group (e.g., African American women) can sometimes support identity needs that are tied to a more inclusive (superordinate) in-group (e.g., Americans). There is already some supportive evidence for this proposition, but it is not yet clear whether: (1) such trends are visible in a wider range of disadvantaged contexts, and (2) this explanation also applies to those who are strongly invested in their subgroup (e.g., feminists). In two waves of a large nationally representative survey from 21 to 23 European states (Ntotal = 84,572) and two controlled experiments (Ntotal = 290 women), we found that: (a) system justification was positively associated with superordinate ingroup identification across multiple cases of disadvantage (Studies 1–3), (b) system justification increased when this inclusive identity was made more salient (Studies 2 & 3), and (c) system justification was visible even amongst feminists when they activated their superordinate (Italian) identity (Study 3).